Toronto 2451 Dufferin Street | 93.4m | 27s | Republic | Arcadis

F

ferusian

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
445
Reaction score
2,753
2451 DUFFERIN ST
Ward 8: Eglinton-Lawrence

Development Applications

Project description:
Zoning by-law Amendment application for a 20-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 706 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 35,455.80 square metres. 462 residential dwelling units are proposed.
Click to expand...

This site is currently home to the Yorkdale-Dufferin Mazda dealership

50bd1eaccfc0ca892c35dc0cef24a544.jpg
 
They literally just opened an Audi dealership across the street. That should have been a condo or office all along.
 
Interesting treatment of the podium level balconies. Too bad they’ll be the first thing to inevitably get VE’d out.
 
That's pretty disappointing. The site is only 500 metres away from an entrance to a brand new multibillion dollar transit line, and also right next to a very convenient multiuse path that's basically a bike highway and contains a pretty nice community parks nearby.

When the city desperately needs new housing, recommending against approval because the building doesn't meet the guidelines for either a midrise or highrise building is pretty weak sauce, to say the least.

It's worth nothing that there's lots of other development planned for the area as well, so saying that it doesn't fit in the existing context is perverse. If anything, the existing low-rise residential neighbourhoods should be required to transition to the mixed-use avenues, not vice versa. I see no reason why a new development should have to atone for the sins of previous planning decisions.
 
Cambry Ardship said:
That's pretty disappointing. The site is only 500 metres away from an entrance to a brand new multibillion dollar transit line, and also right next to a very convenient multiuse path that's basically a bike highway and contains a pretty nice community parks nearby.

When the city desperately needs new housing, recommending against approval because the building doesn't meet the guidelines for either a midrise or highrise building is pretty weak sauce, to say the least.

It's worth nothing that there's lots of other development planned for the area as well, so saying that it doesn't fit in the existing context is perverse. If anything, the existing low-rise residential neighbourhoods should be required to transition to the mixed-use avenues, not vice versa. I see no reason why a new development should have to atone for the sins of previous planning decisions.
Click to expand...

I think the City has generally had a decent relationship w/Republic and they often seem to be able to work things out.

This one one of a series of apps they pushed hard to get in quickly, I believe.

While I don't agree with all of staff's takes; I do get where there are some substantive issues.

I would not be surprised to see a settlement here (but have no inside info on that)
 
Cambry Ardship said:
When the city desperately needs new housing, recommending against approval because the building doesn't meet the guidelines for either a midrise or highrise building is pretty weak sauce, to say the least.
Click to expand...
They knew the guidelines before they submitted this, the fault isn't the cities. Why not do away with the building code while we're at it to expedite things?
 
The Building Code is a legal requirement. Using the word "guideline" in an official document implies that it is non-compulsory. If the City feels so strongly about the design of tall and midrise buildings, they should publish a binding "Tall Building Design Requirements" document instead.

I'm not interested in parsing out the true meaning across all these lengthy, different, and contradictory planning documents. I want the city to build the housing it so desperately needs, particularly in areas nearby high quality transit, as this site is.
 
Unless you're brand new and it's your first application, you know what the expectations are. Call it guideline, recommendations, or requirements. This isn't their first rodeo and they know what they did.
 
Cambry Ardship said:
The Building Code is a legal requirement. Using the word "guideline" in an official document implies that it is non-compulsory. If the City feels so strongly about the design of tall and midrise buildings, they should publish a binding "Tall Building Design Requirements" document instead.

I'm not interested in parsing out the true meaning across all these lengthy, different, and contradictory planning documents. I want the city to build the housing it so desperately needs, particularly in areas nearby high quality transit, as this site is.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to note, that the City critiqued a whole lot more than non-compliance with the Tall Building Design guidelines.

There are road widenings required which were not shown on the application, a parkland dedication less than the legal requirement and a few other items on top.

Republic does know this sort of thing, and have previously noted they were in a rush awhile back to get applications in ahead of changing rules/standards and in that rush, what arrived to the City may not have been the final, perfect idea.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top